## Bava Batra Daf 141b

###### Bava Batra 141b:1
[Bava Batra 141b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/141b:1)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״הַמְבַשְּׂרֵנִי בַּמֶּה נִפְטַר רַחְמָהּ שֶׁל אִשְׁתִּי; אִם זָכָר – יִטּוֹל מָנֶה״, יָלְדָה זָכָר – נוֹטֵל מָנֶה. ״אִם נְקֵבָה – מָנֶה״; יָלְדָה נְקֵבָה – נוֹטֵל מָנֶה, יָלְדָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה – אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 9:5): In a case where one said: **Whoever informs me** as **to what opened my wife’s womb,** i.e., what the sex of her child is, **if** it is **a male,** the one who informs me **shall receive one hundred dinars.** Therefore, if the wife **gave birth to a male,** the one who informed him **receives one hundred dinars.** If he also said: **If** it is **a female** he shall receive **one hundred dinars,** if **she gave birth to a female,** he **receives one hundred dinars.** If **she gave birth to a male and a female, he** receives **only one hundred dinars.**


###### Bava Batra 141b:2
[Bava Batra 141b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/141b:2)

וְהָא ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה״ לָא אֲמַר! דְּאָמַר נָמֵי ״אִם זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה נָמֵי – יִטּוֹל מָנֶה״. אֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי נֵפֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** since **he did not say** anything about **a male and a female,** if she gave birth to a male and a female, he should not receive anything. Why does the *baraita* state that he receives one hundred dinars? The Gemara answers: This is referring to **where he also said: If** she gives birth to **a male and a female** he shall **also receive one hundred dinars.** The Gemara asks: **But** if he stated all of the possibilities, **what** did his stipulations serve **to exclude?** The Gemara answers: They serve **to exclude** a case where she gives birth to **a non-viable newborn,** in which case he receives nothing.


###### Bava Batra 141b:3
[Bava Batra 141b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/141b:3)

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לַהּ לִדְבֵיתְהוּ: נִכְסַי לְהַאי דִּמְעַבְּרַתְּ. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָוֵי מְזַכֶּה לְעוּבָּר, וְהַמְזַכֶּה לְעוּבָּר לֹא קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There was **a certain** man **who said to his wife: My property** is given **to the one with whom you are pregnant. Rav Huna said: This is** a case of **one who transfers ownership** of an item **to a fetus, and** in the case of **one who transfers ownership** of an item **to a fetus,** the fetus **does not acquire** the item.


###### Bava Batra 141b:4
[Bava Batra 141b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/141b:4)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״אִם יָלְדָה אִשְׁתִּי זָכָר – יִטּוֹל מָנֶה״, יָלְדָה זָכָר – נוֹטֵל מָנֶה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִי שְׁנָאָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman raised an objection to** the opinion of **Rav Huna** from the mishna, which states: With regard to **one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male** the offspring **shall receive one hundred dinars,** if **she** in fact **gave birth to a male,** the offspring **receives one hundred dinars.** This indicates that the fetus did acquire the money. Rav Huna **said to him: I do not know who taught our mishna.** It is not identifiable with a known opinion, and presumably the text has been corrupted.


###### Bava Batra 141b:5
[Bava Batra 141b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/141b:5)

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks why Rav Huna replied in this manner: **But let him say to** Rav Naḥman: **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership** of **an entity that has not** yet **come into the world,** e.g., produce that has not yet grown. Just as he maintains that one can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, so too, he maintains that one can transfer ownership of an item to a fetus, who has not yet been born.


###### Bava Batra 141b:6
[Bava Batra 141b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/141b:6)

אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – לְדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בָּעוֹלָם; לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּעוֹלָם מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this explanation: **Say that you heard Rabbi Meir** express this opinion with regard to transferring ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world **to an entity that is in the world. Did you hear him** speak of transferring ownership **to an entity that has not** yet **come into the world,** e.g., a fetus?


###### Bava Batra 141b:7
[Bava Batra 141b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/141b:7)

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עוּבָּר קָנֵי! דִּתְנַן: עוּבָּר פּוֹסֵל וְאֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Naḥman’s objection: **But let** Rav Huna **say to** Rav Naḥman: **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, who says: A fetus acquires** ownership, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Yevamot* 67a): With regard to an Israelite woman who married a priest and he died and left her pregnant, the **fetus disqualifies** its father’s Canaanite slaves from partaking of *teruma*, because until it is born the fetus is not considered a priest, and the slaves, who are part of its inheritance, are not the slaves of a priest. **And** the fetus **does not enable** its mother **to partake** of *teruma*, even though it is the child of a priest. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei.** It is evident from this mishna that Rabbi Yosei holds that a fetus inherits its father’s property.


###### Bava Batra 141b:8
[Bava Batra 141b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/141b:8)

שָׁאנֵי יְרוּשָּׁה, הַבָּאָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this explanation: **Inheritance is different,** since, unlike a gift, **it comes** into the possession of the heir **by itself,** without a formal act of acquisition. Therefore, a fetus can acquire an inheritance, but not a gift.


###### Bava Batra 141b:9
[Bava Batra 141b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/141b:9)

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הִיא, דַּאֲמַר: לָא שְׁנָא יְרוּשָּׁה וְלָא שְׁנָא מַתָּנָה! דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: אִם אָמַר עַל מִי שֶׁרָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Naḥman’s objection: **But let** Rav Huna **say to** Rav Naḥman: **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who says:** The case of **an inheritance is not different, and** the case of **a gift** one gives to his heir **is not different,** i.e., the same *halakhot* apply to both. **As we learned** in a mishna (130a): **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: If one said about** a person **who is fit to inherit** from **him,** e.g., one of his sons: This person will inherit all of my property, **his statement stands.**


###### Bava Batra 141b:10
[Bava Batra 141b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/141b:10)

אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה – לְדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בָּעוֹלָם; לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּעוֹלָם מִי אָמַר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this explanation: **Say that you heard Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka** express this opinion with regard to a gift given **to an entity that** already **exists in the world,** but **does he say** anything with regard to a gift given **to an entity that has not** yet **come into the world?**


###### Bava Batra 141b:11
[Bava Batra 141b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/141b:11)

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הִיא, וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי! מִי יֵימַר דְּסָבַר לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Naḥman’s objection: **But let** Rav Huna **say to** Rav Naḥman: **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka,** who compares a gift to an inheritance, **and he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** that a fetus is fit to inherit. The Gemara rejects this explanation: **Who says that** Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka **holds** in accordance **with** the opinion of Rabbi Yosei?


###### Bava Batra 141b:12
[Bava Batra 141b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/141b:12)

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: בִּ״מְבַשְּׂרֵנִי״! אִי הָכִי, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְאִם אֵין שָׁם יוֹרֵשׁ אֶלָּא הוּא – יוֹרֵשׁ הַכֹּל; אִי בִּ״מְבַשְּׂרֵנִי״, יוֹרֵשׁ מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Naḥman’s objection: **But let** Rav Huna **say to** Rav Naḥman that the mishna is referring not to one who gave a gift to the fetus, but **to** one who said: I shall give a certain sum to whoever **informs me.** This person is in the world. The Gemara rejects this explanation as well: **If that is so,** then concerning **that** which **the last clause** of the mishna **teaches: And if there is no heir other than** the *tumtum*, the *tumtum* **inherits all** of the estate, **if** the mishna is referring **to** one who said: I shall give a certain sum to whoever **informs me, what is the purpose of** mentioning **an heir,** since the mishna is not discussing a gift to the heir at all?


###### Bava Batra 141b:13
[Bava Batra 141b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/141b:13)

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ בְּשֶׁיָּלְדָה! אִי הָכִי, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְאִם אָמַר ״כׇּל מַה שֶּׁתֵּלֵד אִשְׁתִּי – יִטּוֹל״, הֲרֵי זֶה יִטּוֹל; ״כׇּל שֶׁתֵּלֵד״?! ״כָּל שֶׁיָּלְדָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Naḥman’s objection: **But let** Rav Huna **say to** Rav Naḥman: The mishna is referring **to** a case **where** the gift was made after his wife had already **given birth** but he did not yet know the sex of the baby. The Gemara rejects this explanation as well: **If that is so,** then concerning **that** which **the latter clause** of the mishna **teaches: Whatever** offspring **my wife gives birth to shall receive** a certain sum, and she gave birth to a *tumtum*, the *tumtum* **receives** it, there is a difficulty. According to this explanation, the phrase: **Whatever** offspring my wife **gives birth to,** is incorrect. The mishna **should have said: Whatever** offspring my wife **gave birth to.**